Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32640248›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2020

National Trends in Oncologic Diagnostic Imaging.

Andrew B Rosenkrantz, Laura Chaves Cerdas, Danny R Hughes, Michael P Recht, Sharyl J Nass, Hedvig Hricak

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew B RosenkrantzSection chief, Abdominal Imaging, Director of Health Policy, and Director of Prostate Imaging, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Laura Chaves CerdasHarvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, Reston, Virginia.
Danny R HughesHarvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, Reston, Virginia; Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Michael P RechtChairman, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Sharyl J NassNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC.
Hedvig HricakChair, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: hricakh@mskcc.org.
Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine · USNYU Langone Health · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo characterize national trends in oncologic imaging (OI) utilization.

methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study used 2004 and 2016 CMS 5% Carrier Claims Research Identifiable Files. Radiologist-performed, primary noninvasive diagnostic imaging examinations were identified from billed Current Procedural Terminology codes; CT, MRI, and PET/CT examinations were categorized as "advanced" imaging. OI examinations were identified from imaging claims' primary International Classification of Diseases-9 and International Classification of Diseases-10 codes. Imaging services were stratified by academic practice status and place of service. State-level correlations of oncologic advanced imaging utilization (examinations per 1,000 beneficiaries) with cancer prevalence and radiologist supply were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient.

resultsThe national Medicare sample included 5,051,095 diagnostic imaging examinations (1,220,224 of them advanced) in 2004 and 5,023,115 diagnostic imaging examinations (1,504,608 of them advanced) in 2016. In 2004 and 2016, OI represented 4.3% and 3.9%, respectively, of all imaging versus 10.8% and 9.5%, respectively, of advanced imaging. The percentage of advanced OI done in academic practices rose from 18.8% in 2004 to 34.1% in 2016, leaving 65.9% outside academia. In 2016, 58.0% of advanced OI was performed in the hospital outpatient setting and 23.9% in the physician office setting. In 2016, state-level oncologic advanced imaging utilization correlated with state-level radiologist supply (r = +0.489, P < .001) but not with state-level cancer prevalence (r = -0.139, P = .329). DISCUSSION: OI usage varied between practice settings. Although the percentage of advanced OI done in academic settings nearly doubled from 2004 to 2016, the majority remained in nonacademic practices. State-level oncologic advanced imaging utilization correlated with radiologist supply but not cancer prevalence.

Indexed as

MedicarePositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyCross-Sectional StudiesCurrent Procedural TerminologyRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesAdvanced imaginghealth services researchMedicareoncologic imagingutilization

Identifiers

PMID32640248
PMCPMC7483645
OpenAlexW3039233360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.